Thanks, Dina!
For context to the rest of the LDT folks, Dina reached out to me about working
on this under our umbrella for now. It made sense until we understand if it's
a large enough thing to live as its own working group because most of us have
various performance concerns too. So, like P
On 6/12/15 7:46 AM, "Andrew Laski" wrote:
>On 06/11/15 at 06:54pm, Ian Wells wrote:
>>On 11 June 2015 at 12:37, Richard Raseley wrote:
>>
>>> Andrew Laski wrote:
>>>
There are many reasons a deployer may want to live-migrate instances
around: capacity planning, security patching, noi
On 4/16/14 10:00 AM, "Dan Smith" wrote:
>
>Remember that just because someone -1s a patch, doesn't mean that every
>single comment they made was -1 worthy on its own. Often times I will -1
>for a spelling mistake and then make a bunch of other purely-opinion
>comments which don't necessarily ne
Exactly. Even if operators/users only comment with a +0, it's already
flushed out a lot of good details on several blueprints.
Thanks!
Matt
On 4/15/14 2:38 PM, "Tim Bell" wrote:
>
>+2
>
>I think that there is also a need to verify the user story aspect. One of
>the great things with the abili
On 4/13/14 11:58 PM, "Michael Still" wrote:
>* specs review. The new blueprint process is a work of genius, and I
>think its already working better than what we've had in previous
>releases. However, there are a lot of blueprints there in review, and
>we need to focus on making sure these get l
It would be incredibly useful to get some of the "packagers" into this
conversation too.
Matt
On 4/8/14 4:51 AM, "Steven Hardy" wrote:
>On Wed, Apr 02, 2014 at 08:24:00AM -0500, Dolph Mathews wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 10:40 PM, Adam Young wrote:
>>
>> > On 03/28/2014 03:01 AM, Tom Fif
>> team it's unlikely to be accepted.
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>>
>> Tom
>>
>>
>>
>> On 01/04/14 22:44, Matt Van Winkle wrote:
>>>
>>> So, I've been watching the etherpad and the summit submissions and I
>&g
So, I've been watching the etherpad and the summit submissions and I
noticed that there isn't anything for nova. Maybe I'm off base, but it
seems like we'd be missing the mark to not have a Developer/Operator's
exchange on the key product. Is there anything we can do to get a session
slotted like
>From: Kyle Mestery
>mailto:mest...@noironetworks.com>>
>Reply-To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
>mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>>
>Date: Friday, March 21, 2014 2:49 PM
>To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
>mailto:openstac
Hey Sean,
The number one item that came out of the Operator's mini summit on Monday
was better mechanisms to engage Operators in the design and review
process. Moving Blueprints to Gerrit was something discussed quite a bit.
It's fantastic to hear the same thing is coming from the Nova developmen
10 matches
Mail list logo
